Last Hiroshima bomb crewman dies

[oldthaihand99]

After the second atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, why did the Japanese take so long to surrender?

 

When the Japanese didn't surrender immediately after the second bombing, why didn't the USA continue to drop more atomic bombs?

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Because they only had two.

[oldthaihand99]

"On the night of 9–10 March, B-29 bombers of the US Army Air Forces struck Tokyo with incendiary bombs, which killed 100,000 people within a few hours. Over the next five months, American bombers firebombed 66 other Japanese cities, causing the untold numbers of destruction of buildings and the deaths between 350,000–500,000 Japanese civilians.[254]....

 

"....the [atomic] bombings...[were] simply an extension of the already fierce conventional air raids on Japan"

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

 

 

I wonder if those who oppose the two atomic bombing also oppose the B-29 bombings which killed even more. Or are the opposers pacificsts who'd have prefered to wait for the concievable possibility of the Japanese & Germans to develop their own atomic bombs, annihilate every US city, massacre millions, win the war & take democratic freedoms from the planet?

[robblok]

"On the night of 9–10 March, B-29 bombers of the US Army Air Forces struck Tokyo with incendiary bombs, which killed 100,000 people within a few hours. Over the next five months, American bombers firebombed 66 other Japanese cities, causing the untold numbers of destruction of buildings and the deaths between 350,000–500,000 Japanese civilians.[254]....

 

"....the [atomic] bombings...[were] simply an extension of the already fierce conventional air raids on Japan"

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

 

 

I wonder if those who oppose the two atomic bombing also oppose the B-29 bombings which killed even more. Or are the opposers pacificsts who'd have prefered to wait for the concievable possibility of the Japanese & Germans to develop their own atomic bombs, annihilate every US city, massacre millions, win the war & take democratic freedoms from the planet?

 

 

Nice try to rewrite history. But that is an American thing. How can a resource limited country that is on its last legs (both Japan and Germany were) develop an atomic bomb. Its not possible. So nice implausible argument.

 

And yes I am against the fire bombing too. I am against all attacks on civilian targets by ALL factions. But its so easy to say those bad Germans, those barbaric Japanese, while we our-self did the same things. 

 

Take off those pro America sunglasses and see it for what it really was a bad war were civilians were actively targeted by BOTH sides nothing to be proud about. However feats like D day and battle of midway where it was soldier against soldier. Celebrate that not the massacre of innocent civilians. 

 

Do I prefer the USA and GB over Japs and Germans.. sure. Is the USA and GB perfect.. no way they committed war crimes just the same. 

[Credo]

I have read that one of the reasons the Japanese were slow to surrender after the first bomb was dropped was because it was largely kept secret from the rest of the country.   The amazing level of destruction was not known to the Japanese people in general.   After the second bomb was dropped, it was decided that they could not keep the destructive nature of the bomb a secret.   

[oldthaihand99]

 

"On the night of 9–10 March, B-29 bombers of the US Army Air Forces struck Tokyo with incendiary bombs, which killed 100,000 people within a few hours. Over the next five months, American bombers firebombed 66 other Japanese cities, causing the untold numbers of destruction of buildings and the deaths between 350,000–500,000 Japanese civilians.[254]....

 

"....the [atomic] bombings...[were] simply an extension of the already fierce conventional air raids on Japan"

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

 

 

I wonder if those who oppose the two atomic bombing also oppose the B-29 bombings which killed even more. Or are the opposers pacificsts who'd have prefered to wait for the concievable possibility of the Japanese & Germans to develop their own atomic bombs, annihilate every US city, massacre millions, win the war & take democratic freedoms from the planet?

 

 

Nice try to rewrite history. But that is an American thing. How can a resource limited country that is on its last legs (both Japan and Germany were) develop an atomic bomb. Its not possible. So nice implausible argument.

 

 

 

 

In 1945 it was, as far as the USA knew, a logicly concievable possibility that Japan or Germany could be close to developing or already have atomic bombs. The resources were available for the getting on planet earth by those two nations, just as they were available to the USA.

 

"During the war, and 1945 in particular, due to state secrecy, very little was known outside of Japan about the slow progress of the Japanese nuclear weapons program. The US knew that Japan had requested materials from their German allies...."

[KarenBravo]

It wasn't just the bombs that made Japan surrender. It was the combination of the bombs and a declaration of war by the USSR who invaded the puppet state of Manchukuo.

[oldthaihand99]

 

 

And yes I am against the fire bombing too. I am against all attacks on civilian targets by ALL factions.

 

 

 

Even if it means losing a war?

 

Even if it means millions more humans may die, including all your family members & friends?

 

Even if it means many more deaths overall to both your countrymen & foreigners? Way more than were killed by the atomic bombs.

 

With that type of policy Israel could never attack Hamas military targets if Hamas had only one civilian at each location.

 

Are these the kind of civilians you refer to:

 

"Millions of women, old men, and boys and girls had been trained to resist by such means as attacking with bamboo spears and strapping explosives to their bodies and throwing themselves under advancing tanks."[21] The AFA noted that "[t]he Japanese cabinet had approved a measure extending the draft to include men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five (an additional 28 million people)."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

 

 

 

Speaking of civilians, up to millions more outside of Japan could have died if the war continued a few months. So it was reasonable to end it with quickly, whether that meant more B-29 attacks or atomic bombs:

 

 

"Supporters of the bombing argue waiting for the Japanese to surrender would also have cost lives. "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Historian Robert P. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners.'"^[28]

[oldthaihand99]

"Ah the old justification of US blindness. Is it so hard to accept that your country was wrong too."

 

Actually i consider myself a world citizen. IMO dropping the bombs was the best thing for the world.

 

Civilian casualties are common in wars, even those that try to avoid them. The issue is, then, not can you avoid them, but how many will there be...and when are they justified?

 

Without the bombing of Japan as it occurred, IMO there would have been way more civilian and military deaths, plus injuries, in WWII. Since the end justifies the means, it's a simple equation to decide what to do. A no brainer.

 

You would not have even firebombed Japan, so Japan would have had many more resources to fight back..the war could have gone on for years with tens of millions more lives lost, than what occurred, both civilian and military.

 

That's horrible enough, but with the significantly increased odds of losing the war with your tactics, those extra millions dead would be a picnic compared to a world ruled by Japan, Germany and their allies.

 

"Following your reasoning Oldthaihand, Hamas that targets civilians is ok doing that
because all is allowed to win a war."

 

That's may be Hamas' thinking, but it's not mine. Is there any evidence the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were purely civilian attacks aimed at killing innocent civilians? No, quite the contrary:

 

"Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army,
which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel stationed
in the city. Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage
point and had several military factories as well.[40][41] Nagasaki was of great wartime
importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of
ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.[42]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
 

 

"Would I have killed civilians to save my own family. YES"

 

Then perhaps now you finally begin to understand why 2 bombs had to be droppped.

 

 

[KarenBravo]

@robblock

 

Give up you deluded black and white view of the world and come to understand that it's all grey.

[robblok]

@robblock

 

Give up you deluded black and white view of the world and come to understand that it's all grey.

I am the one saying its all grey.. the US attacked civilians. They were just a little less bad as the others.

[KarenBravo]

 

@robblock

 

Give up you deluded black and white view of the world and come to understand that it's all grey.

I am the one saying its all grey.. the US attacked civilians. They were just a little less bad as the others.

 

 

No you're not. You're saying that the deaths of civilians is bad in ALL cases.

I disagree.

[Ulysses G.]

Hamas does the same thing the US did in WW2 targeting civilians

No it doesn't. Hamas purposely targets civilians. That is who they are aiming for. The Allied powers had other military objectives, but did not mind plenty of collateral damage as well. That is how pretty much all wars were fought back then, but things have changed a lot since.

 
Firebombing and atomic bombs are going against civilians primarily.

Hiroshima was a major manufacturing center for military goods. They aimed to destroy the enemy's war industries and kill or disable civilian employees. People who built fortifications and manufacturing munitions and other war materials in factories and workshops were considered combatants and much of the manufacturing process was carried out in small workshops and private homes.

[metisdead]

Hamas has nothing what so ever to do with this topic. The My Lai massacre in Viet Nam has nothing what so ever to do with this topic. 911 has nothing what so ever to do with this topic.  Stop the off topic deflection obfuscationary tactics.  Posts in this manner will disappear.

 

As to the civilian casualties in the bombings, people forget that in times of war, civilians are most likely employees in factories manufacturing war weapons, factories manufacturing war weapons were most likely in the bombing areas, in that aspect.  With the known intelligence that was gathered at the time, the decision that was made to put an end to that war was put into effect to put an end to any further unnecessary loss of life in trying to stop that war.   What is known now is irrelevant to what was known then.  Stop trying to put the "Yanks" as the bad guys.

[ABCer]

I would like the people here to understand a few things.

 

True: -  Americans were justly pissed off by the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor base. Capitulation by Japan possibly saved some lives. Japanese were not treating POW in a decent manner.  

On the other hand it is also 

True: - Americans used WMD on civilian population.  Japan was finished by the time of the Enola Gay anyway.  The A-bomb was made and needed to be tested on real people.

 

Speculation: - Japanese treacherously attacked a military target. If no Pearl Harbor - Americans would have dragged their feet for a long time - making money on supplies and exausting all of Europe. Soldiers die in a war as a 'norm'. War criminals?  Sure, but only by today's rules and only if they were the losers.  Hence - Enola Gay heroes!  I can understand the crew - they were soldiers and did their duty.  But the country who sent them should try to forget. I hope this is not construed as American bashing.

 

Undeniable fact: - No matter what is said above - USA was, is and hopefully will remain the only country in this ugly world who did use A-bomb. No judgment, just the fact! 

[Scott]

A post has been deleted.  

 

Members are welcome to their opinion and you may express your opinion about the topic.   There is little need to express your opinion about the opinion of other posters.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

[oldthaihand99]

It looks like the US gave Japanese civilians warning in advance of bombing their cities. If they refused to leave, then they just signed their own death warrant like the suicidal kamikazes.

 

"This type of leaflet was dropped on Japan, showing the names of 12 Japanese cities targeted for destruction by firebombing. The other side contained text saying "we cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked ..." "
 
"For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

It looks like the US gave Japanese civilians warning in advance of bombing their cities. If they refused to leave, then they just signed their own death warrant like the suicidal kamikazes.

Very interesting. No one can say that we did not warn them.